Member of the Funny Name Club

October 16, 2008

Im-Plantation

“Don’t you want to be on the right side of history?”

“You don’t want to be on the wrong side of history!”

Suddenly people who haven’t cracked a history text voluntarily in ages are concerned about being on the “correct” side of history. I’m seeing the phrase “right/wrong side of history” everywhere lately. Of course we know what the topic is: voting for Obama.

Months ago I heard the phrase issue out of the mouth of an old boyfriend whom I’ve known for over twenty-five years. He called me because he wanted to hear the actual reasons that I was not supporting Obama without having to read this blog—or at least he claimed to want to hear them. It was a fruitless conversation during which few of my reasons received a full hearing. (Listening was never his strong suit.) The question about the level of my desire to be on the correct side of history is the one useful thing that stuck in my head about the conversation.

In response to the question, I was about to rhetorically ask “who cares” when Old Boyfriend ended his unsuccessful efforts at proselytizing. (Actually his phone died and I assume that he has though better of calling back.)

Who indeed does care about being on the “right side of history?” I don’t. But I’m wondering how this thing-of-alleged-importance got placed on the list of desires which the average American citizen is supposed to hold. I began to wonder about the origin of the phrase and idea(s) behind it. Who was the first to think that this particular choosing of sides was important and why?

I had no luck with the phrases “right side of history” and “wrong side of history” searching with Google, even though—judging by the number of results--both seem to be one of those phrases which has become worn out from overuse by professional and amateur pundits, right, left and indifferent.

But finally, with an intuition kick-started by a breakfast of hotlinks and scrambled eggs, I inserted the name “Marx” into the search field. Jackpot.

The concept of a right side of history is derived from Marxism, and it is founded on the belief that there is a forward advance toward a socialist future that can be resisted, but not ultimately defeated. But does anyone believe this anymore? Does anyone take seriously the claim that the present state of affairs will be set aside and a wholly new order of things implemented in its place, and that such a transformation of the world will happen as a matter of course?

What does it mean to say someone is on the wrong side of history? Something like this, as best I can tell: History is moving discernibly and inevitably in a uniform, progressive, good direction, and if you hold to ideas or purposes contrary to that direction, you will find yourself more or less discarded, left by the wayside, a fossil of an era that was happily wiped out.

Though my scouting about indicates conservatives may use the expression as often as leftists, it clearly has deep roots in the thinking of Karl Marx, who supposed there was an economically determined class struggle the consequences of which were clearly predictable. [SNIP]

I am not saying equal misery will derive from the mere use of an expression about being on history's wrong side, but I do think that the assumptions buried in the phrase are treacherously fallacious and that bandying it about frequently could help inculcate them.

It’s fascinating to note how Marxist phrases and concepts have been getting floated into the main of communication. And I’m more nervous that Ambrose is about them—especially when people use these “persuasion” tools without knowing what they mean. But I'm betting that, by now, Mr. Ambrose is nervous as well.

105 Comments

You know what I was thinking today, Baldi? For reals -- Senator Obama would make many points with me, and make me more likely to vote for him, if he stated plainly that there is nothing really meaningfully "historic" about his run for the presidency, in this sense:

He should tell people he is not a Black man running for president, nor a half-Black man, nor a half-White man, but just a man... that the color of his skin, nowadays, 50 years after MLK preached, means little, and much less than it used to. Then, he should implore his followers to vote for HIM, and his positions, and not his skintone. That the fact that it shouldn't matter, he should say, is what makes it historic.

Then, he would almost have me in his camp -- except, of course, for his political positions and policies, which I am opposed to. But at least I am voting against him because of something that matters, historically!

P.S. Re: "Being on the Right Side of History," I wonder if the proponents of that view always think that that means being FOR something? Or, can one be on the "right side of history" by voting AGAINST someone or something? ...

Great post!
I think the election is a tale of two Roosevelts: Franky or Teddy.
Both candidates are keen on having the Fed do too much, and neither seems to recall clearly that there are three levels of government, as well as three branches.
Oversimplifications bite, but I like this one for its tendency to filter out the irrelevant race question and point to the larger problem of Consitutional erosion.
Senator McCain's "I'm a Federalist" bleat during the debate rang so sheepish with me, but Senator Obama's policy approaches preclude calling McCain on the point.
Cheers,
Chris

The clarification of the marxist connotation is thought provoking. I had been thinking it meant that Americans wanted to be counted among those who voted the first Black President into office or that by NOT voting for BO, you were somehow committing a crime against Black Americans.

I'm sure you're going to tell me how nice everyone was to you and how they said you were brave and an independent thinker but newscasts and print reports show that Palin rallies often resemble KKK gatherings with ample doses of racial slurs and physical threats against blacks by audience members.

"I had been thinking it meant that Americans wanted to be counted among those who voted the first Black President into office or that by NOT voting for BO, you were somehow committing a crime against Black Americans."

Given that black people have willingly given their votes to white folks for about as long as we've had the privilege what's wrong with us supporting a talented and capable black man now?

And don't give me the "ideology" rap either because McCain isn't really a conservative.

A lot of black conservatives, as witnessed by the pathetic performance of that fool James Harris, are supporting McCain just to show massa their endless love and loyalty.

uptownsteve: And don't give me the "ideology" rap either because McCain isn't really a conservative.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Just because McCain "isn't really a conservative," meaning, I suppose, that he is less conservative than some would like, doesn't mean that one can't choose him ideologically over his opponent, who is considerably less conservative.

I happened to find this blog through Google. I was curious to see how prevalent minority(Black or Hispanic) Republican websites were out there in the internet. I am very happy to have come across this blog. I am a grad student at Purdue and originally from NYC. I get dogged all the time about being a Republican and supporting McCain's campaign being from NYC and being of Dominican ancestry. In my lifetime I cannot remember a time where politics has become so polarized and divisive.

Again, thank you for your commentary and look forward to reading more of your blog.

It's definitely an interesting concept. However, I like to coin the phrase "cause and effect." I think Merovingian in the Matrix: Reloaded said it a lot more eloquently, but things happen, and as a result, other things happen. Notions of right and wrong are purely subjective.

I'm still not getting what your point is other than place a rant of non sequiturs here on this blog. Shay may you indulge in that. I will not.

I'll answer the one coherent question you've asked.

"Given that black people have willingly given their votes to white folks for about as long as we've had the privilege what's wrong with us supporting a talented and capable black man now?"

Because Barack Obama is talented and capable in the things that go against everything in which I believe. He demonstrates qualities which suggest that he has loyalty to no one, black, white or other, he demonstrates political cowardice: he votes present on most of the tough issues and when he does make decisions, all of them appear to be grounded in how much flak he will take for that decision rather than grounded in any dearly held principle. If he gets too much flak for a decision, instead of defending it on principle, he will automatically change it. And the worst thing: he will pretend as if he never made the original decision/held the original position.

And, lastly, his economic principles are Marxist in nature. I'm a Cold Warrior and I didn't spend my life fighting communism just to vote for a proponent of the ideology simply because he is my same ethnicity.

BTW, Steve, I'm sure that you've been in this world long enough to realize not only that everyone wearing your same skin color doesn't necessarily mean you any good, but that some who wear your same skin color will play on your loyalties in that area to actively do you harm. Surely you know that.

If I am going to be "on the right side of history," I would much rather tell my nonexistent grandchildren that I voted to stop the spread of Socialism, than I voted to elect the first black president.

Oh, and Steve, I personally don't know any moderate Republicans who are voting for Obama (most of my extended family are made up of such). In fact, I know several registered anti-Iraq war Democrats who are voting for McCain (gasp! even gay ones!) because they understand that Obama is a Socialist. They have for a long time. A RePO government scares them as much as it scares me (an Indpendent).

I find it as offensive for a black person to vote for Obama because he is black as I do for a white person to vote for McCain because he is white.

Skin color is meaningless when it comes to political ideology -- and frankly whether one comes down on the side of socialism, Marxism, capitalism, or whateverism, it's a "white" man's ideology, isn't it?

I would very much like to be informed about a black man's ideology, and how and why it is different from a white man's.

How do black mother's hopes for their children and grandchildren differ from a white mother's? An Asian mother's? An Hispanic mother's?

Race is not culture is not determinative. Humanity is. We really are all ONE. And we're not necessarily represented by "the One".

Isn't it rather odd that I, a white agnostic, counts as one of the people I admire a black Jehovah's Witness? This woman and her husband and child have found a common link with me and mine - our humanity - that overcomes all sorts of ideological differences.

Count me among the few who look forward to visits by Jehovah's Witnesses :-)

So we've got a socialist and communist agenda about to move into a good position to take the WH. Hmmm, time to get frantic and spew all the crap available and improvable. McCain is anything but a hero (crashed 3 planes, not counting the one that got him over Hanoi. Anyone else, without Daddy as PACOM, would'be been grounded for life and not entrusted with another dime's worth of military hardware. Tortured: my a$$. Daddy's boy coughed up everything, admitting so over and over. Then did his best to hide anything re: those left behind in the early 1990's hearings with john the faker kerry leading the fake charge. Adulterer, marrying cindy the druggie with a mob-connected and financed daddy 30 days after divorcing his first wife, against whom he committed (openly admitted) adultery dozens of times. Real hero, for sure. Just an everyman, like all of us at this blog, earning over $5M per year. Right in our financial neighborhood.

I'll be back: gotta make PBJs for the kids, which is what we've eaten a lot of lately.

"Spread the wealth": so what if joe the moronic, wife-beating, non-tax-payin' plumber has neighbors who aren't doing well, the whole town's not doing well, but for the few, aka "modern times," then maybe joey the racist will be kind enough to perform his job for free, since the wealth only spreads amongst the chosen few, like Joe, charles keating's relative who has a brother in Wasilla Alaska, named Doug.

Sick of fake veterans, are ye?! Well look in the mirror, ms. "I fought communism....." Sure you did, right there at the DMZ and the Fulda Gap, right? Or in an air conditioned building with a gee-dunk??

Right: I thought as much.

baldilocks sez: One does not have to be stationed in South Korea or in West Germany to have been a Cold Warrior. But you'd know that if you were a real veteran.

Yip, small kids at 50. Some of us weren't home much over the past few decades, and saddling a spouse while I lived it up in tents and hooches and BFV wouldn't have been exactly fair. And I'm all the younger for it. Man kids (all kids, right, left and center) are incredibly fantastic. They brighten up very situation and put life into perspective. At least some people know they shouldn't have children, naturally or via adoption, since they're too selfish. That's a saving Grace.

I will post a DD Form 214 with my SSN sanitized for my protection and my parents' address sanitized for yours. All you have to do is ask me nicely in email. If you're not willing to do that, you will apologize to me right here. Nothing flowery and not a fauxpology, either.

Ivan: in case you're serious and just misguided, consider this. No dirt about Joe the Plumber matters, because the uproar is over what Obama said, not Joe. Obama revealed (again) that when you break through his carefully groomed persona the real him is a flat-out Marxist of a degree previously unseen in a mainstream US political party. McCain's not my favorite person (prior to the Palin pick I beat him up fairly regularly myself) but I'm reasonably certain he understands the Soviets were the bad guys in the Cold War.

I'm still trying to Grok uptownsteve's position. He (apparently) praises Barry for being post-racial, but ignores the countless times the Obama campaign has cried racism, including that silly Paris/Britney ad. Barry himself has referred to his race/ethnicity several times, claiming that the Republicans will attack him on this Real Soon Now.

McCain, on the other hand, had at least twice warmly praised Obama for his success (once during the convention, once during the Alfred E. Smith roast), and his campaign has never issued any racially-based remarks, unlike the Clinton primary campaign.

I really don't understand what uptownsteve is talking about with respect to Palin rallies, and alleged slurs, attacks, or anything. Nor have I seen any links to any reliable source. Perhaps he would be kind enough to provide them?

I'd also like to see some evidence of those moderate Republicans voting for Obama. That's news to me.

Also, WHAT "failed policies!?" No, really, I've seen that "8 years of failed policies" so many times I'm thinking theres a downloadable keyboard macro for lefties.

The failed policies which resulted in Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and France all providing troops for Afghanistan? Not to mention Holland, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Georgia? The policies which resulted in administrations in the same countries which are US-friendly? The policies which have given us a demonstrably more-stable and peaceful Iraq, including Oktoberfest in northern Kurdish Iraq? Or the policies which are even now grinding the Taliban into powder with the assistance of the Pakistan Army?

Oh -slapping forehead- you must mean the failed Kyoto treaty! Or are you talking about the recent financial meltdown where Bush and McCain tried several years ago to head the problem off, only to be shut down by Democratic Party leaders?

IvanovIvanovich is ignorable as yet another lackwitted git barely capable of repeating generic slander. He is obviously unaware of the irony of sliming Joe (or McCain) in the same manner that others have gone after Obama, by claiming he's really a Muslim, or he wasn't born in the United States.

BTW, I've seen that bit about Joe being a wife-beater/abuser, but have never seen an actual link to any reliable source. Does anyone have one?

There's also a really strange phenomenon I have *never* understood: a certain percentage of the electorate wants to have voted for the winner, whoever that is. They are, obviously, not particular about issues, they just want to be able to say, "yep. I voted for the winner."

"BTW, Steve, I'm sure that you've been in this world long enough to realize not only that everyone wearing your same skin color doesn't necessarily mean you any good, but that some who wear your same skin color will play on your loyalties in that area to actively do you harm. Surely you know that."

Yeah, but the problem with black conservatives is that they relly seem to believe that their fellow blacks are their enemies and that white rightwingers are their friends which makes no sense at all.

You say you've been making the case for being a conservative for 5 years.

I'm sure that you dutifully repeated rightwing catchphrases and talking points but if you're anything like Shay Riley, you haven't convinced any black folks to convert.

"You can't possibly want to see a continuation of the failed policies of the last 8 years which is all McCain represents."

Steve, you can do better.

One of the few Bush successes has been the recent turn of events in Iraq, which only came about when Bush FINALLY adopted McCain's strategy.

Mortgage meltdown? Bush tried desperately to regulate subprime lending in 2003, and McCain in 2005, only to be thwarted by the Democrats, including Obama.

Insane deficit? Bush spends like a drunken sailor; Republicans try to buy their way into a permanent majority (see how well that worked?) and one of the few Republicans to try to hold the line on that stupidity was one John McCain.

Opposition to questionable interrogation techniques? The leader on that one: John McCain. Want Gitmo closed? The first one on that bandwagon: John McCain. (I know, I know. Conservatives disagree with McCain on these. But let's be clear where McCain stands.)

Exactly which of the "failed policies" of the last eight years has John McCain supported?

You can't possibly serious, unless of course you're a rabid righty who wouldn't admit failure until we're in a full blown depression with Islamic terrorists taking over American ports.

Here's just a few of Republican failures over the last eight years which McCain endorsed wholeheartedly.

Preemptive military strike policy (how we invaded Iraq). FAILED since there were no WMDs or connections to Al-Qaeda which was the basis of this policy...Bush should be held on war crimes for this one).

Military Policy on Afghanistan - Should have been the primary objective in our fight against terror but became a side-note. - FAILED BADLY

The question wasn't about Bush policy, but examples of where McCain represents more of the same.

"Preemptive military strike policy (how we invaded Iraq). FAILED since there were no WMDs or connections to Al-Qaeda which was the basis of this policy"

Well, you might want to go back and read the actual words, rather than the Democrat retelling of them. The connections to Al-Qaeda certainly existed (Zarqawi, for one, was already in Iraq when we invaded); the WMD programs were another basis for the invasion, and the programs certainly existed, although not, apparently, at the levels the CIA (under both Clinton and Bush) believed. And, well, maybe you should think about the meaning of the word "preemptive." In the sense that Iraq can certainly no longer create WMDs, that would be a success. Anyway, as I said, McCain faulted Bush from almost the get-go on his implementation of the Iraq War (as did John Kerry in 2004, you might recall).

"Military Policy on Afghanistan - Should have been the primary objective in our fight against terror but became a side-note."

Evidence that it "should have been primary?" Evidence that it "became a side-note?" Actual strategic ideas on precisely how more American troops in Afghanistan would have improved things? Evidence that McCain supported Bush's Afghanistan policies, over against specific proposals that would have improved the situation in Afghanistan?

"Economic Deregulation policies"

There may indeed be many, but you might find at least one that McCain supported (and Obama opposed) that has had a bearing on our current condition. I already found for you exact instances of proposed Bush-McCain regulation that have a direct bearing on our current economic situation that congressional Democrats (including Obama) opposed.

"Domestic Policy - Unemployment is rising, mortgages are falling, the country is close to a recession with a depression right on its heels - FAILED"

Using his line of reasoning....GEORGE W. BUSH is a "historical figure" in that he is president. I recently purchased a "Presidential place mat" for my kids and saw his picture on it.
If your friend's logic is correct he should be remorseful that he was "on the wrong side of history" by not having voted for George W. Bush - the president and "historical figure".

That is assuming that your friend is not talking about some OTHER historical inference that "all Black people" should be in support of?

For me - I make note that the Progressive/Democrats have more control of the communities that we live within than at any other point in HISTORY and yet our key problems remain.

UptownSteve - are you talking about a SARAH PALIN RALLY where you hear all of these racial slurs........or the BET HIP HOP AWARDS that was just filmed in Atlanta where you can hear all of these offensive words about Black people and women?

Lil Wayne was just honored as the "Lyricist of the Year". Do I need to post the lyrics to "A Mili" for you again?

Why do you continue to INFERIORIZE Blacks as you make the White man's use of these same offensive words more hurtful to you?

I don't care to see your DD 214. I read your "about me" and that's great, congrats. I believe every word. Why would I not believe otherwise?

Again, did you 'fighting communism' from air conditioned buildings with headphones on? Or a Recon jet? (That would be nearer the battle field and a bit more on the dangerous side.) Or from a HUMINT area, close to an enemy? Or did you augment SpecOps downrange? Methinks it was the air conditioned type. And that's Ok too. But the word "fighting" probably ought not be there.

"UptownSteve - are you talking about a SARAH PALIN RALLY where you hear all of these racial slurs........or the BET HIP HOP AWARDS that was just filmed in Atlanta where you can hear all of these offensive words about Black people and women?"

[quote]The question is why everytime the rabid racism of the white right (whom black people like you gleefully support)is identified and revealed, black conservatives deflect with a rant about gangsta rap.[/quote]

Steve can you point to the examples overt RACISM conducted against Barack Obama at a Sarah Palin session?

What about the same for the various incidents had against Michael Steele when he was running? For some strange reason the antics done against this other Black guy did not rattle you as much. Please tell us why?

[quote]Why do you demonize your own people?[/quote]

I don't know the editorial standards for Balilocks so I will not at this time post any mainstream hip hop lyrics and ask you about "self hatred". Please note - Lil Wayne won Lyricist of the year for his "A Milli" lyrics. Go look them up.

[quote]
Nobody who is serious about political discourse cares about gangsta rap.[/quote]

SURE THEY DO!
The Black Political movement sees Rap as an important auxiliary to get the vote out!

Proving Atlanta is truly the home of the BET Hip-Hop Awards, Atlanta's own T.I. and Ludacris opened to a packed house at the Atlanta Civic Center on Saturday evening. But before long, the third annual show was shaping up to be as much of a Barack Obama rally as an awards ceremony.

the "right side of history"
is also connected with the
19th/20th C belief in the idea of
a "spirit of the age" or Zeitgeist.

one author pointed out how
the construct plays into moral relativity,in the sense that
waht is moral in one era is suddenly immoral in another.

the author (David Watkins)
also pointed out that all the
harranging and table pounding
in support of the viewpoint that "the Zeitgeist is thus-and-so"
are frequently the behavior
of ideologues with a political agenda they are trying to construct and implement.

since so few can fortell the future,and most historians might agree that accurate characterization of an era tends to happen several decades or more after the actual events,
the whole pretension of "the Zeitgeist" is an effort at wish-fulfillment.

I almost hate to ask, but what was the latest rant from that blowhard?

And as to your first answer, thanks. But if you're right, and those are the main enemies, then things are probably in pretty good shape, because, yeah, you'll find some in the right wing of the Republican party, no doubt, but they're not all that numerous, even there. Vocal, annoying, bothersome enough to make me quit reading certain blogs entirely, but, all in all, not that numerous.

And not numerous enough to make me abandon the principles I believe are correct, just because a few racists happen to share some of those views (for their own reasons.)

Nobody tells me how to think. And if I come up with 2 + 2 = 4, and some racist comes up with 2 + 2 = 4, I'm not going to change my answer, just for them.

"To scare white people on the prospect of "that one" in the White House."

If, by "that one," you think they'll be referring soley to race, then it won't work. There simply ain't that many white folks that scared of black folks, anymore.

If, on the other hand, by "that one," you mean they'll really stick it to his very radical past, and radical associations, and many examples of poor judgement and poor choices of friends and advisors (Wright, Pfleger, Ayres, Rezko, the Chicago Democratic Machine, ACORN, Jim Johnson), his incredibly liberal voting record -- way to the left of 90% of America, his demonstrated naivete in foreign policy proposals, his "evolving" (to put it charitably) positions on everything from offshore drilling to gun control to meeting with Ahmadinejad to SDI to health care, then, yeah, they might well be able to scare a lot of folks into not voting for "that one."

I'm already scared into not voting for him, and McCain nor Palin nor Rove nor loudmouths at Palin rallies had a thing to do with it. Obama's own history, statements and positions have scared me thoroughly away from him.

This is so interesting to me, even my black conservative friends are voting for Obama, and I keep reminding them that Obama and his lefty illuminati morals and values are the opposite of them and I am sitting there thinking they are racist for voting for him just because he is black, but if I said that aloud, then I would be the racist right?

The people I see as enemies of the black community are people who opposed integration, civil rights, and black advancement.

Those people are predominately in the rightwing of the Republican party.[/quote]

I knew that Steve would botch the answer.

The enemies of Black people are CONCEPTS not PEOPLE!!

The enemies of Black people list:

* The forces who stand in the way of our EDUCATION

* The forces who KILL US

* The forces who STEAL OUR PROPERTY HARD EARNED PROPERTY

* The forces who SUPPRESS OUR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY and our BUSINESSES

* The forces who would DENY US JUSTICE

* The force who provides us with bad council which leads to our HEALTH PROBLEMS

You must first understand Steve before you can understand WHY he focused his list as such. Steve is a "Non-White White Supremacist". The actions of the White man take precedence over the same assaults done by a Black person.

Notice his list was:

*Those who

*opposed integration
*civil rights*
*black advancement

What Steve doesn't mention is that:

* the drive toward INTEGRATION in 2008 is largely being done by Black folks seeking to escape from the existing Democratic dominated strongholds that they are not contented with. I write extensively about the "Black Flight Progressive" who is moving to live among conservatives.

* Opposed Civil Rights.
Now ask Steve if he believes that there is a modern day "CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION" taking place on the inner city streets as so many places have low HOMICIDE CLOSURE RATES and thus the KILLERS OF BLACK PEOPLE continue to walk the streets, never seeing the inside of a courtroom?

* Oppose Black Advancement:
You'd never get Steve to admit it but, pound for pound, the greatest amount of suppression of BLACK ADVANCEMENT takes place in the halls and classrooms of the public schools where his ideology is dominate upon our children. So many millions of young Black people have their hopes and dreams snuffed out by the dysfunctional culture that is resident within.

Even when "the enemy" moves far, far way from Steve - he will REMAIN as the number one threat in Steve's mind.

The enemy's departure will be said to be an "injustice" by Steve as the enemy has left Steve all by himself to fend for himself.

"Black conservatives are supporting McCain for the same reason a lot of white conservatives are.

They just plain don't like niggas."

Well, that's rather provocative language, and the Dave Chapelle routine, good as it was, has become a bit aged by now.

But of course you have a point. I would just prefer another, less loaded, term, instead of the N*-word.
From an African perspective, it is quite the psychological same case with a Michelle Malkin (née Maglalang) as a with Juliette Akinyi Ochieng': over-identification. 'Nuff said.

Or haven't you picked up a history book recently? You do know that the landmark Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was passed with REPUBLICAN votes?

In reality, the Democratic party has been the enemy of blacks in this country nearly from it's beginning. Blacks often talk about the legacy of slavery - forgetting which party actually came into existence to halt the spread of slavery and which party stood for it's advance.

The aforementioned Black person who will not vote for Obama, a Black man - because he is Black. More directly he is a Black Progressive and they don't like the track record of what this ideology has produced for the Black community while they are in control

OR

"The Black Flight Progressive"?
You see Steve - as I drive around the various counties in Metro Atlanta I have noted a very peculiar phenomenon. I am seeing more Black Progressive who are moving to CONSERVATIVE areas....yet CONTINUING TO VOTE FOR the PROGRESSIVES.

So get this Steve - this strange creature - the "Black Flight Progressive" is able to SAY that he support Black Progressive Politics.

He is still able to CONTINUE VOTING FOR Progressive politics.

Yet get this Steve - when it comes to:

* WHERE HE LIVES
* Where he EDUCATES HIS CHILDREN
* Who he entrusts his SAFETY AND SECURITY to............

His ACTIONS speak louder than his VOTES.

(I know Steve - you live in Prince Georges County MD and thus you are going to use YOUR experience as the defacto standard)

Tell me Steve - how do you explain this creature who is so confused?

Isn't this like a Chef who refuses to eat out of his own kitchen because he knows the real deal?

WHAT are you and your fellow Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism-Chasers ultimately striving for Steve?

"The aforementioned Black person who will not vote for Obama, a Black man - because he is Black. More directly he is a Black Progressive and they don't like the track record of what this ideology has produced for the Black community while they are in control."

That's funny because Black progressives are in control of my black upper middle class community.

Tell me, what positive things have conservatives done over the last 8 years when for 6 of them they had total control?

Name one Bush policy that worked.

"I know Steve - you live in Prince Georges County MD and thus you are going to use YOUR experience as the defacto standard"

What in your opinion is the defacto standard of the black experience?

If you believe it's ghetto dysfunction then you are no different than a nose picking white racist.

Uptown, you're not only offensive, you're historically ignorant. First, Celler didn't intro the 1964 CRA in the House. The act was itself written by the Justice Dept and passed into the Judiciary committee chaired by Celler by direct request of JFK. He was a co-sponsor only because the President directly requested it of him--he did not write it or introduce it untilthe titular head of his party told him to do so. Hardly a profile in courage.

Rather than sending it out of committee to a floor vote, Celler in turn fearlessly referred the bill out to the Rules committee, where Rules chairman Howard Smith (D-Virginia) sat on it. After JFK was killed LBJ got into the game and used the bully pulpit to help Celler get the bill out of Smith's committee and up for a vote. (For those of you not acquainted with Congressional politics, that means the Celler was the White House's pet Congressman. Arf, Fido!)

In the House vote on 2/10/1964, Republicans voted 138-34 in favor, Democrats supported it 152-96. Do the math.

Passed on to the Senate, the bill was then filibustered and stalled for the next several weeks by Senate Democrats. The filibuster was not led by the Senate GOP, but by Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., and Richard Russell. Indeed, as there were only 33 Republicans in the Senate, the Senate GOP was not capable of sustaining their own filibuster in any case. I believe Byrd's record for longest individual filibuster, set while opposing the CRA, still stands. Amazingly, so does former KKK Exalted Cyclops Byrd.

The substitute bill that finally passed was indeed co-sponsored by Humphrey, but he didn't write it. Everrett Dirksen (Senate Minority leader, Republican) wrote it, and Dirksen and Mike Mansfield (Senate majority leader, Democrat) sold it with the help of Humphrey and Thomas Kuchel (R-California), all of whom were listed as co-sponsors. Wow, Humphrey worked on it. If he can get all the credit for his part to the exclusion of all others who also worked on it and did even more, then I want sole credit for everything ever done by any team I've ever worked on.

The yea/nea vote in the Senate was Republicans 27-6, Democrats 46-21. Once again, do the math.

Today there is no such thing as a Republican liberal or moderate

What a crock. I'm a Republican "Main Street" moderate, and have been for years. I know many black Republicans, most of them economic and/or social conservatives who are tired of being used and taken for granted by the DNC. Neither party's membership is all one thing or another, and only a simpleton unacquainted could believe otherwise. Or a wingbot dedicated to demonizing The Other as a matter of reflexive habit--and doctrine.

Gee, steve, your flooding of the blog with comments makes you look more like an intentional DOS attack than an actual human being concerned with actually discussing anything. Wonder why that is? :-D

Today there is no such thing as Republican liberal and the party you support is vigorously anti-black.

What happened to GOP moderates in your robotic screed? Did a line of code drop out of your programming when actually encountering one? Funny, I know some Republican liberals too. And even some black Republican liberals. The mindless venom displayed by such as yourself has done much to create and sustain them. Funny thing, that. Vitrioloic mindless hatred is at least as much of a turnoff as it is a motivator once you leave the fever swamps of the wings. (In both parties, even.)

And try to control that temper.

Tsk, tsk. Projection will get you nowhere.

So you support a party that doesn't even want your vote. LOL!!!!!

Tsk tsk, again. A lack of perceptivity and acuity in the afflicted was only to be expected, I suppose. In any case, I have always supported candidates, not parties*. I don't really care for either party all that much. I think they're both full of what makes the grass grow greener, with the level of same rising proportionally as one goes up through the local/state/national levels. One does tend towards the lesser of two evils at times, but one is still unimpressed by the attempts of wingbot partisans to play the "them devils/us angels" card.

Yes, yes, do follow your link and read the history of the CRA of 1957, which your own link describes as "toothless legislation." I'm sure LBJ and Celler were very proud of themselves for passing a meaningless bill that did nothing at all to end segregation and promote civil rights. But tacking it onto a breif and tremendously undetailed history of the CRA of 1964, the one that worked, which I recounted above, also does not transfer the background of one into the history of the other. Poor attempt at distraction there. That, or you just have a poor grasp of legislative history. Which is it, pray tell?

[*--as in supported directly, not with just a vote. I've been a campaign staffer in dozens of elections, for candidates of both parties and for non-partisan issues.]

Yeah, but the problem with black conservatives is that they really seem to believe that their fellow blacks are their enemies and that white rightwingers are their friends which makes no sense at all.

Some of our fellow blacks are our enemies. Yours as well. Some white rightringers are friends. And the reverse combinations are also true, simply because human beings are innately sinful. But the left/right dichotomy is a separate issue.

See, these are the basic problems with communication between us: what the facts are, how we use them to come to conclusions and how we think of human beings. I can look at almost every idea you’ve put forth in this thread and use the individual idea as an object lesson to demonstrate how our ways of thinking differ and how those differences impede communication.

You have decided that all white rightwingers are the enemy because of their stated political preference and no amount of concrete and irrefutable evidence to the contrary will change that. This is so because you believe in ethnic tribalism, crystalized in this question, though you didn’t ask it of me: “Why do you demonize your own people?” Conservatives believe in a different kind of tribalism; an idea-tribalism, if you will.

Therefore, when you, Steve, see a conservative criticize a black person or persons, you think that the conservative is criticizing that person/those persons because they are black or for being black. To you (and to people like Osas), blackness is a way of thinking. Black ethnicity and idea-tribalism (liberal/leftism) are inseparable to you. This makes no sense to a conservative, who sees ethnicity and political philosophy (idea-tribalism) as separate.

[quote]Tell me, what positive things have conservatives done over the last 8 years when for 6 of them they had total control?

Name one Bush policy that worked.[/quote]

I will use that which OBAMA HAS CHOSEN TO EXTEND as tacit admission of their success - despite the attempts by the Progressives to derail all 3 of them:

1) No Child Left Behind. Never before have we had a uniform body of data to evaluate the performance of our public schools and to register debate there in. Obama CLAIMS that the program was underfunded. In truth you had the 350 lb defensive backs known as the teacher unions doing everything possible to derail it. With bloody hands and the switch blade tucked in their sock which was used when Evil Bush attempted to run the ball - they say "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah YOU FAILED!"

2) Faith Based Initiative - another program that the Left opposed yet Obama - the Golden boy plans to continue. He says that "he is going to do it the right way" this time. We all know the deal though Steve

3) The Marriage Initiative. Get this WhiteBowieSteve - Obama receives PRAISE for talking about the need for marriage and responsible fathers. Evil Bush said the same and he was attacked for inserting the government into Marriage.

*************
STEVE did you notice the fast one that you attempted to pull in your second post?

How do you suppose things will improve for the inner city under McCain when they haven't under Bush?

The PROGRESSIVE LEFT runs the PUBLIC SCHOOLS where they are hurting Black folks the most.
Why do you keep focusing on the "National Republicans" who are failing Black people rather than the abundance of "Local Democrats" who are doing it hands on.

To answer your second challenge - the reason why Obama and the machine that he is a part of needs to be challenged Steve is because:

A parent who sends her child to Baltimore's Fredrick Douglass High School (who I believe should have the name stripped off in honor of the dignity of this man)

* Has a Democrat City Council Person representing their Interests
* Has a Democratic Mayor
* Has a 100% DEMOCRATIC City council
* Has a Democrat as a State House Rep
* Has a Democrat as a State Senate Rep
* Has a Democratic Majority State House
* Has a Democratic Majority State
Senate
* Has a Democrat for Governor
* Has a Democrat US Rep
* Has 2 Democrat US Senators
* Has a Democrat Majority US House
* Has a Democrat Majority US Senate

and if Barack Obama is the Next President.....has a Democratic President

Now Steve - with the conditions in Douglass and many other Baltimore based schools as they are - DO YOU REALLY THING that the collection of Democratically SOLD OUT Black people suffering from and managing the situation are going to make note of WHO IS REIGNING SUPREME OVER THEIR SITUATION?

Steve - point blank - PROGRESSIVISM IS NOT ORGANIC. You all need a scapegoat to work against. The worst possible situation for you to be in is when YOU HAVE THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM......and you STILL FAIL.

There will be no INTROSPECTION
There will be no questioning of the PREVAILING ASSUMPTIONS.

Instead you all will seek to TAKE OVER THE WORLD NEXT, promising that once the PROGRESSIVES rule the world....Fredrick Douglass High Will be world class....if only you can suppress those damned CONSERVATIVES who have vacated to Iceland and Namibia - leaving you all alone.

The temptative (and ultra vires) introduction of the hermeneutic notion of tribalism as a tool of analysis for some rifts in US race relations is of course a very interesting (and appreciable) approach on part of Juliette, and it deserves a more thorough answer, especially when one has Kenya in the back of mind.

As a first installment, let me just point put that you are (mis)constructing a marxist strawman in order to tear it down easily. Your central assumption above about the creed of Steve et al. is a paraphrase of the famous (or notorious) tenet Das gesellschaftliche Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein.
This sentence is sometimes true indeed, and quite often wrong, and I won't waste me time defending it, because my own position is obviously very much away from it. So there. :)

If conservatives are so idea oriented and non-tribal, why can't a black Republican get elected dogcatcher?

Indeed white progressives have consistently shown they are past race with not only the Obama situation but the elections of blacks like Dave Patterson, Deval Patrick, Doug Wilder, Ike Leggett and Keith Ellison in majority white areas.

But everytime a black Republican runs at the top of the ticket they lose and lose bad because white conservatives won't vote for them.

Dear Uptownsteve, conservatives (and right-wingers more specifically) simply don't understand things like structural or intrinsic racism. You couldn't even manage to nudge this concept into their frames of understanding by means of a sledge-hammer - it won't work. The sledge-hammer will break first.

"I also have black friends, therefore I just cannot be a racist, your aspersion is ridiculous" is the standard counter-argument. They are constitutionally unable to separate racism from the individual plane. Maybe that is one of the important conceptual issues that distinguishes (all?) US conservatives from progressives. I won't go as far as to call it a present-day Republican-Democrat dichotomy, but it might be.

I am not entirely sure how much better left or middle or liberal black blogs are these days, though.

For example, I was less than underwhelmed with the two-part election punditry article of Martin Kilson in the otherwise very esteemable "Black Commentator" (issues 294 and 295); an example of the shoddiest non-scholarship that I have ever seen. *sigh*.

uptownsteve: The white righties hate us and the black righties like being novelties.

This statement leads me to believe that it's not really true that you "wanted to hear what black conservatives had to say." Because if you really believe it then you haven't been listening to any conservatives at all.